Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2022 Apr 8;14(8):1889.
doi: 10.3390/cancers14081889.

Colorectal Cancer Diagnosis: The Obstacles We Face in Determining a Non-Invasive Test and Current Advances in Biomarker Detection

Affiliations
Review

Colorectal Cancer Diagnosis: The Obstacles We Face in Determining a Non-Invasive Test and Current Advances in Biomarker Detection

Faddy Kamel et al. Cancers (Basel). .

Abstract

Globally, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer, with 1.4 million new cases and over 700,000 deaths per annum. Despite being one of the most common cancers, few molecular approaches to detect CRC exist. Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) is a known serum biomarker that is used in CRC for monitoring disease recurrence or response to treatment. However, it can also be raised in multiple benign conditions, thus having no value in early detection or screening for CRC. Molecular biomarkers play an ever-increasing role in the diagnosis, prognosis, and outcome prediction of disease, however, only a limited number of biomarkers are available and none are suitable for early detection and screening of CRC. A PCR-based Epi proColon® blood plasma test for the detection of methylated SEPT9 has been approved by the USFDA for CRC screening in the USA, alongside a stool test for methylated DNA from CRC cells. However, these are reserved for patients who decline traditional screening methods. There remains an urgent need for the development of non-invasive molecular biomarkers that are highly specific and sensitive to CRC and that can be used routinely for early detection and screening. A molecular approach to the discovery of CRC biomarkers focuses on the analysis of the transcriptome of cancer cells to identify differentially expressed genes and proteins. A systematic search of the literature yielded over 100 differentially expressed CRC molecular markers, of which the vast majority are overexpressed in CRC. In terms of function, they largely belong to biological pathways involved in cell division, regulation of gene expression, or cell proliferation, to name a few. This review evaluates the current methods used for CRC screening, current availability of biomarkers, and new advances within the field of biomarker detection for screening and early diagnosis of CRC.

Keywords: biomarkers; cancer detection; cancer screening; cancer treatment; colorectal cancer.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Bowel cancer survival by stage of disease at diagnosis. Solid blue and red lines denote one-year survival post-diagnosis for males and females, respectively. Open circles show survival rates (%) for males and females (blue and red, respectively) where no staging data are available. Dotted lines indicate five-year net survival. Numbers of cases are shown as blue bars (males) and pink bars (females)—right vertical axis. Horizontal axis—stage at diagnosis. Data are from [9] and refer to adults diagnosed in 2013–2017 and followed up to 2018.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Wnt signaling pathway. Three pathways are shown—canonical, planar cell polarity (PCP), and Wnt/Ca2+. Molecules, pathways, and interactions implicated in CRC are highlighted. Reproduced from [44] with permission.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Colorectal cancer pathways. Molecules, pathways, and interactions implicated in CRC are highlighted. Reproduced from [49] with permission.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Summary of the main results of a study comparing FIT stool test to methylated DNA stool test for the detection of colorectal cancer [84].

References

    1. Ferlay J., Soerjomataram I., Dikshit R., Eser S., Mathers C., Rebelo M., Parkin D.M., Forman D., Bray F. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: Sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int. J. Cancer. 2015;136:E359–E386. doi: 10.1002/ijc.29210. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Abd Algfoor Z., Shahrizal Sunar M., Abdullah A., Kolivand H. Identification of metabolic pathways using pathfinding approaches: A systematic review. Brief. Funct. Genom. 2017;16:87–98. doi: 10.1093/bfgp/elw002. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Atlasi Y., Noori R., Marolin I., Franken P., Brandao J., Biermann K., Collini P., Grigorian M., Lukanidin E., Ambartsumian N., et al. The role of S100a4 (Mts1) in Apc- and Smad4-driven tumour onset and progression. Eur. J. Cancer. 2016;68:114–124. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2016.09.012. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hinnebusch A.G., Ivanov I.P., Sonenberg N. Translational control by 5′-untranslated regions of eukaryotic mRNAs. Science. 2016;352:1413–1416. doi: 10.1126/science.aad9868. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Li Y., Yuan Y. Alternative RNA splicing and gastric cancer. Mutat. Res. 2017;773:263–273. doi: 10.1016/j.mrrev.2016.07.011. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources